Sally Hemings: An American Scandal

It's a TV movie, a chick flick, and blatant historical revisionism--I thought I'd hate it, but for some reason I didn't. An African-American woman wrote the screenplay, which is a good thing, given the racial and political ramifications of this fictionalized account of the relationship between America's third president, Thomas Jefferson, and the slave woman, Sally Hemings, who almost certainly bore him one, and probably several, children. The screenwriter was candid enough to admit that the relationship was most likely not as romantic as she portrayed, but that otherwise she tried to stick to known historical facts. Of course, the fact is that we know very little about the real Sally Hemings, and the film's creators have taken this as license to portray a very modern, strong-willed and beautiful heroine (beauty, for better or worse, is important for the star of a historical romance--and I must admit Carmen Ejogo succeeded in capturing my attention) who hardly seems to be a slave at all. She is recast as a latter-day Esther, the Biblical slave woman who became queen of Persia and used her position to save her people. But even the fictional Hemings cannot save her people--although she does help many escape to freedom. And both the fictional and real Thomas Jeffersons, despite having penned the words "all men are created equal" and claiming that slavery was an abomination before God, never took action to bring about the end of the institution of slavery. Indeed, Jefferson was a complicated and puzzling figure. A virtual Renaissance man with big, beautiful dreams for the future of humankind, he was also a hypocrite and a racist, and was frequently ineffectual in both his politics as well as his own personal finances. The last third of the movie chronicles his decline into bankruptcy, and it becomes a gothic tale of decadence, with poor Sally doing all she can to fend for herself and her children while staying loyal to the master of the house. The decline and fall of Jefferson's dream world is the final test of Sally's womanly strength, and it is also a bittersweet presaging of the fall of the Old South. Of what little we do know of the real Hemings, it seems highly probable that she was three-quarters white, and that she was in fact the half-sister of Jefferson's late beloved wife. The lasting and profound image of this modest movie is of the "white slaves," people who we know for a fact did "pass" for whites once they gained their freedom. We condemn slavery because "all men are brothers"; how astounding it is to see that on the old plantations this was literally and blatantly true, with men like Jefferson holding their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles as "property'! I liked this movie better than the fancy Merchant-Ivory production, Jefferson in Paris. Sam Neill's waffling, self-contradicted, flakey Jefferson seems more historically accurate than Nick Nolte's mountainman, and even though much of the rest is pure fantasy, it is a fairly well-crafted, entertaining and positive rendering of disturbing and potentially controversial material.

I wish I had run across this unheralded made-for-TV film several months ago, while I was writing a graduate-level paper on the Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings controversy. Director Charles Haid's production brings this age-old debate to life in a moving and – I believe-historically accurate manner.

Although the writing credits do not mention Barbara Chase-Riboud's 1979 novel, `Sally Hemings,' this work of inspired historic fiction seems to be the primary inspiration for Tina Andrews' screenplay. The novel, likewise, was built upon the 1974 landmark book by Fawn McKay Brodie, `Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate Portrait.' Savagely attacked by the academic elite at the time, Brodie's work was supported by Annette Gordon-Reed's `Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy' in 1996 and by DNA testing two years later. Some still refuse to believe. For the open-minded, though, Brodie and Gordon-Reed's books (which I highly recommend) painted a clear portrait, even if it may have been blurred a bit around the edges. The DNA evidence merely cemented their scholarship.

Andrews and Haid, like Chase-Riboud, Brodie and Gordon-Reed, take an even-handed, fair look at events as they may well have happened. Naturally, like Chase-Riboud's novel, this is historic fiction. Large chunks of private lives are recreated on the sparsest bits of evidence and speculation. The story, however, stands up to scrutiny as a fictitious narrative. Did Jefferson and Hemings exchange years of romantic letters, which were later destroyed? We will never know. Did Jefferson's long-term relationship with Hemings, which by its very length would seem to dispel the arguments that it was either an ongoing rape or purely a sexual relationship, affect his ideas on slavery and emancipation? We will probably never know. Does this movie paint a portrait of two very real human beings, acting and reacting as they may very well have done 200 years ago? I believe it very much does so.

This is probably not the place for an in-depth analysis of the arguments for and against the Hemings' family claims. Personally, I found in my own research that the relationship between the two seems very likely to have been real and to have been a true love story -albeit a tragic one. If one accepts the basic tenets – that Jefferson and the teenage slave became physically and emotionally involved in Paris and that they continued a somewhat secret love affair for nearly 40 years, which bore several mulatto children, then the story of Jefferson and his slaves is a particularly complex and poignant one. A true Enlightenment man, Jefferson was certainly keenly aware of the disparity between his words `all men are created equal' and other such epitaphs and his ownership of more than 100 African-American slaves.

As in the Chase-Riboud novel, Jefferson is seen as a good man, but far from perfect. Sam Neill, although his physical resemblance to the third president is slight, captures the complexity and ambiguity of this brilliant, yet tortured individual. In his heart he knows slavery is wrong, but can never bring himself to abandon his rising political star by taking such a politically suicidal stance. Later, after his wealth and influence have crumbled, he is wracked by regret for not having used his earlier power to fight slavery. At least this is Haid's take and I think it is a perfectly supportable one. Carmen Ejogo, meanwhile, is lovely and convincing as the mysterious Sally Hemings. Unlike Chase-Riboud's character, Ejogo's Sally is not sophisticated beyond all likelihood for her time and place. She could read and write French and English and obtained many of the social skills of a genteel country lady; yet she was probably not the cerebral debutant of the novel.

The rest of the cast is strong, including legendary black actress Diahann Carroll as the family matriarch, Betty Hemings, and Mare Winningham as Martha Jefferson Raldolph. While Andrews and Haid may occasionally slip into presentism and have Sally and others mouth very 2000-sounding lectures on black pride, etc., they generally avoid such temptations. The movie transports the viewer into Jefferson and Hemings' world – and into their lives as they very well may have been lived.

I thoroughly enjoyed this mini series, it was very well written, entertaining and one of the best I have seen. Very historically accurate in terms of what the slaves went through and a good quality production. The entire cast are some of the most talented actors I have seen, no one was a disappointment. Carmen Ejogo portrayed Sally as an intelligent woman and was very convincing and wonderful in her part. I think we will see a lot of her in the future. Sam Neill was also wonderful-based on historical information I believe his portrayal of Jefferson was accurate. Mare Winningham was excellent as always but I enjoyed every actor down to the smallest roles. I wish there were more quality programs like this one on television. The only disappointing part was when it was over.

Although not a fan of one specific genre ,a DRAMA/ROMANCE genre is not my first favor to watch. Started watching the movie didn't get my attention at first and the feeling arose to stop it and look at another movie. Just over 1000 movies waiting to be seen in my DVD-collection, it was very tempting to 'save this one for later'. Finally it was a TV production, so it couldn't be too good, was my reasoning. But I was wrong, and was really wrong. After about 15 minutes, the movie was attracting my attention and I went on seeing it. After 30 minutes 'I was all in it' and really enjoyed it. There is exceptional good acting and a good story line. All characters where 'real' in their acting, contributing to the experience of the story told in the movie. I can't say anything about the historical truth of this movie, but I didn't watch it from that point of view. I watched it to enjoy a good movie and it seemed to be one. So to be short: Try this movie and look at it for a minimum of the first 20 minutes, before deciding to stop, which in my opinion is the wrong thing to do. It's just the habit of having movies catches you in their first minutes. Well, this one surely isn't one of such, but it evolves slowly but surely to a good movie while watching. One important fact to mention is the music used to support the story in the movie. It's an exceptional good choice that was made here. I don't know if the movie has better soundtracks then the version I saw (dutch version) with 2.0 Dolby surround, but surely a well recorded 5.1 or even DTS soundtrack would significant improve the total movie experience. But being a TV production, I doubt there is something better than 2.0 Dolby surround (although you can leave out the 'surround' because it isn't really there). Despite this technical aspect it turned out to be a surprisingly good movie and I was very glad, I DID finish my watching. Believe me, this movie is much better than one might expect. And I can especially recommend this movie for women, cause I think they even more appreciate this movie than the 'we coming from mars'-guys.

Personally I'm tired of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, what's so shocking about a man taking a mistress whether they are white, black, purple or green. Why is Jefferson put on this golden pedestal? What's so shocking about finding out that this man ascending to heaven had flesh just like everyone else.

Personally, I came away feeling angry about the movie. Can't people to any more research than what they do? James Callender was scrupulous, yes, but he was a reporter and jailed under the Alien and Sedition Acts. He could have been reward a little from his trouble, after all Jefferson couldn't be happier when he was publishing his History of 1797 against the Federalists. If it wasn't for James Callender we probably wouldn't even be seeing this movie and the gossip that came of it would have died a gradual death. Next is Dolly Madison. Did any of those people actually look at a picture of Dolly Madison? She had black hair not red and that table scene when James Callender was asking her about her and Aaron Burr in New York. She wasn't even in New York; she was in Philadelphia burying a husband and a son from the yellow fever epidemic. There were other things I could point out as well but the average person doesn't realize the mistakes and that's what makes me so angry.

I see historical movies and how they botch things up makes me so mad and what I get angry over is the fact that people see these movies and believe what they see. They don't bother to look for themselves to find the truth.

Besides the great criticism I did enjoy Sam Neil as Jefferson I thought his manner seemed fitting, better than Nick Nolte in Jefferson in Paris. Mare Winningham was perhaps the best as Martha Jefferson constantly struggling between the duties of a mistress of the plantation, daughter to her father, and his relationship with Sally. When it was all over, it was entertaining and that is the number one motive behind this movie.